Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Con Artist


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy keep. Concerns addressed and no remainining delete !votes (non-admin closure) Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Con Artist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable film with no reliable sources in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC) * Delete: Falls under WP:FUTURE. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 14:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage in reliable sources the meet the WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL's "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Sources show the film began filming last August and is now to be called The Love Child.  Considering the principals invloved, finding sources was quite easy. In a quick search I found a number of articles speaking toward the film, its production, and its completion: Calgary Sun 1, Cinematical, Boxxet, Screen Daily, The Spectator 1, Moviehole, The Spectator 2, New York Post, Calgary Sun 2, JoBlo, Hello Magazine, Wirtualna Polska... and Even better, last August Edmonton Sun reports that principle filming has wrapped.  It will assuredly be getting even more press. This is definitely a keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have expanded and sourced the article since my comment above.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the changes now make the article fit for inclusion. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I think part of the reason I was having trouble finding it was because of the new name. I think that if this is kept, a move is in order. I have no objection to leaving the redirect behind. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm a bit confused, actually. Which is the new name of the film? Whatever's the new name should be the appropriate title of this article. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I learned, the current title of The Con Artist is less than a month old. Nearly all sources found toward the project are under its working title of The Love Child. I made certain the article shows the change.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Michael said. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Good to go. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per added sources. Another example of the need for WP:BEFORE. DES (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator has now said this is "fit for inclusion" and I se no unstruck delete views, is this ripe for a speedy keep? DES (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.